3 environmental analysis...3.1 aesthetics tl 695 & tl 6971 reconductor project final is/mnd july...

3.1 AESTHETICS

TL 695 & TL 6971 Reconductor Project Final IS/MND ● July 2017 3.1-1

3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

3.1 AESTHETICS

3.1.1 Definitions Aesthetic resources include the visual character and quality of an area, consisting of both the

landscape features and the social environment from which it is viewed. The landscape features

may be natural (e.g., mountain views) or manmade (e.g., a city’s skyline). Aesthetic resources

include, but are not limited to:

Federal, state, and local designated scenic resources

Designated federal, state, and local historic properties

Areas of high visual quality (i.e., scenic vistas, scenic hiking trails, scenic rivers,

and scenic highways)

Recreation areas such as parks and preserves

Landscape features, including canyons and gorges, valleys, and mountains

Dark night skies

Terms used to describe aesthetic resources are defined in Table 3.1‐1.

Table 3.1-1 Definition of Visual Resources Terms

Term Definition

Glare Sunlight or another brilliant luminary reflecting off a specular (mirror-like) surface. The intensity of the reflection can be distracting, discomforting, or debilitating.

Glint A momentary flash of glare that may be repetitive.

Intactness The integrity of visual order in the natural and built landscape and the extent to which the landscape is free from visual encroachment.

Key Observation Point (KOP)

A location from which a viewer can see either iconic or representative landscapes of the project. Used for visual simulations.

Landscape Character Unit (LCU)

Defined areas that have similar visual features, homogeneous visual character, and frequently, a single viewshed. Typically, it is the spatial unit used to assess visual impacts.

Scenic Vista A distant public view that is recognized or valued for its visual quality, located along or through an opening or corridor.

Skyline An outline of land and buildings defined against the sky.

Unity The degree to which the visual resources of the landscape join together to form a coherent, harmonious visual pattern; the compositional harmony or inter-compatibility between landscape elements.

3.1 AESTHETICS


Term Definition

Viewer Exposure A measure of proximity (the distance between viewer and the visual resource being viewed), extent (the number of viewers viewing), and duration (how long the visual resource is being viewed). The greater the exposure, the more viewers will be concerned about visual impacts.

Viewer Awareness

A measure of attention (level of observation based on routine and familiarity), focus (level of concentration), and protection (legal and social constraints on the use of visual resources). The greater the awareness, the more viewers will be concerned about visual impacts.

Viewer Sensitivity The degree to which viewers are sensitive to changes in the visual character of visual resources. Viewer sensitivity reflects both viewer exposure and viewer awareness.

Viewshed The surface area visible from a particular location (e.g., an overlook) or sequence of locations (e.g., a roadway or trail).

Visual Quality What viewers like and dislike about visual resources that compose the visual character of a particular scene. Viewers may evaluate visual resources differently based on their interests in natural harmony, cultural order, and project coherence.

Visual Simulation Two- or three-dimensional depictions of the visual character of a future state. Simulations range from artistic renderings to computer animations.

Viewer A person located within the project viewshed who can observe the project.

Vividness The visual power or memorability of the visual impression received from contrasting landscape elements as they combine in distinctive visual patterns.

Sources: (Federal Highway Administration 1988, Federal Highway Administration 2015)

3.1.2 Environmental Setting

Regional Setting The proposed project is located in southern California within the western edge of the Peninsular

Ranges. The Peninsular Ranges are a group of mountain ranges running approximately north‐

south and stretching from Los Angeles to Baja Mexico with peaks over 10,000 feet. Landforms

in the proposed project area include the Santa Ana Mountains to the north and lower ranges of

hills that slope directly to the coastline. Creeks running south to the Pacific Ocean provide more

level valley areas, where development tends to occur. Elevations along the proposed project

route range from 130 feet to 750 feet above mean sea level (amsl).

The proposed project would cross largely through rugged and hilly terrain in undeveloped

areas. Much of the vegetation in the proposed project area consists of evenly‐distributed, low‐

growing coastal sage scrub with distinct riparian willow scrub and sycamore‐alder woodland

present along San Mateo and San Onofre Creeks. Surrounding land uses primarily include MCB

CPEN training areas, San Onofre State Beach, and undeveloped land. Other land uses that

shape the visual landscape include the developed portions of the City of San Clemente, private

residences, military housing, golf courses, paved and unpaved roads, SONGS, and commercial

uses.

3.1 AESTHETICS


Electric transmission, power, and distribution facilities are visually evident within the proposed

project vicinity. Electrical facilities in the area include substations, steel lattice towers, steel pole

structures, wood pole structures, and overhead power lines.

Proposed Project Setting

Landscape Character Units

The proposed project area is divided into six representative LCUs to effectively describe the

visual features of the area. Each LCU has landscape conditions that are generally similar and

have common basic visual characteristics of line, form, color, and texture. The locations of the

proposed project LCUs are shown on Figure 3.1‐1. The existing visual conditions and

representative photographs of each LCU are presented in Table 3.1‐2. The representative

photograph of each LCU shows characteristic features of that LCU along the proposed project

alignment.

Scenic Vistas

The City of San Clemente has designated two scenic vistas: (1) Knob Hill on the Rancho San

Clemente Trail near Avenida Pico and Calle del Cerro, approximately 1.7 miles west of the

proposed project, and (2) on a ridgeline near the Forester Ranch Ridgeline Trail by Costero

Risco, approximately 2.6 miles west of the proposed project (City of San Clemente 2014). Views

of the proposed project area from these vista points are obstructed by topography and

development.

The City of San Clemente has designated public view corridors and significant ridgelines

throughout the City that contain views of natural landforms, the City’s Spanish Village by the

Sea, and the shoreline (City of San Clemente 2014). No public view corridors offer views of the

proposed project area. The proposed project area is visible from one significant ridgeline, the

easternmost segment of the Rancho San Clemente Trail, located approximately 0.5 mile west of

the proposed project.

Scenic Corridors and Highways

The proposed project area is not visible from any designated state scenic highways. The nearest

state scenic highway is State Route (SR) 91 between SR‐55 and just east of the Anaheim city

limit, located approximately 30 miles from the proposed project area.

Interstate 5 (I‐5) between SR‐74 and SR‐75 (southern Orange County to southern San Diego

County) is an eligible state scenic highway (Caltrans 2016). I‐5 is located approximately 300 feet

from the proposed project area at the closest point. Segments E and F of the proposed project

area are visible from I‐5.

The City of San Clemente has designated a network of scenic corridors throughout the City

(City of San Clemente 2014). Avenida Pico is the only scenic corridor with views of the

proposed project area.

3.1 AESTHETICS


Figure 3.1-1 Landscape Character Units in the Proposed Project Area (Revised)

3.1 AESTHETICS


Table 3.1-2 Description of Landscape Character Units

Description Representative Image

San Onofre State Beach LCU

Location. Extends from Talega Substation to Cristianitos Road and I-5 Characteristic features. Undeveloped lands with gently rolling to steep topography trending from a northwest to southeast direction. Vegetation is dominated by coast live oak woodland, Diegan coastal sage scrub, and non-native grassland. Many access roads, trails, and fire breaks weave through this LCU. Transmission corridors cross the unit in the north. Foreground and middle ground views of the LCU are available from Mountains’ Lookout, various trails, San Mateo Campground, and Cristianitos Road. Visually dominant features. Talega Substation, transmission and utility lines, Cristianitos Road, San Mateo Campground Intactness. Low Unity. Low Vividness. Moderate Visual Quality. Low

3.1 AESTHETICS



Sierra Training Area LCU

Location. MCB CPEN Sierra Training Area Characteristic features. San Mateo Creek, its floodplain, and the Sierra Training Area. Disturbed grassland areas are used for Marine Corps training. Riparian vegetation surrounding San Mateo Creek includes willow scrub, mulefat scrub, and sycamore-alder woodland. This LCU is not open to the general public; however, the LCU can be seen from Cristianitos Road, San Mateo Campground, San Onofre State Beach, and I-5. Views are backdropped by the mountains of San Onofre State Beach or by the San Onofre Housing Area. Visually dominant features. Power lines, MCB CPEN operational buildings, training facilities Intactness. Low Unity. Low Vividness. Moderate Visual Quality. Low to Moderate

3.1 AESTHETICS



Bravo Three Training Area LCU

Location. Extends from Sierra Training Area to SONGS Mesa Characteristic features. Undeveloped open space and a ridgeline with moderate to steep topography. Vegetation is dominated by dense Diegan coastal sage scrub. This LCU is not open to the public; however, the northwest-facing slopes of the LCU can be seen in the middle ground from Cristianitos Road, San Mateo Campground, San Onofre State Beach, and I-5 traveling south. The southeast-facing slopes of the LCU can be seen in the middle ground from I-5 and Old Pacific Highway 101 when traveling north and the San Onofre State Beach entrance kiosk. Visually dominant features. Sky-lined transmission line towers and ridgeline fire breaks Intactness. Moderate Unity. Moderate Vividness. Moderate Visual Quality. Moderate

3.1 AESTHETICS



San Onofre Housing Area LCU

Location. Extends from I-5 down Basilone Road and Chaisson Drive Characteristic features. Highly developed and varied composition of housing, streets, schools, and community facilities. Native and exotic vegetation is present. This LCU is not open to the general public; however, the housing area is visible in the foreground from I-5 traveling in both directions and Old Pacific Highway 101 when traveling north. The housing area may also be seen in the middle ground from the San Onofre State Beach entrance kiosk. Visually dominant features. Sky-lined transmission line towers, housing, Basilone Substation Intactness. Low Unity. Low Vividness. Low Visual Quality. Low

3.1 AESTHETICS



San Onofre Creek LCU

Location. San Onofre Creek and floodplain Characteristic features. San Onofre Creek, its floodplain, and the generally level alluvial benches that surround the floodplain. Outside the meandering sandy creek channel, riparian vegetation consists of willow scrub and mulefat scrub. This LCU is not open to the general public; however, direct foreground views of the LCU are available from I-5 and Old Pacific Highway 101when traveling north. The LCU can also be seen in the foreground from the San Onofre State Beach entrance kiosk. Visually dominant features. Transmission and distribution line facilities Intactness. Moderate Unity. Low Vividness. Moderate Visual Quality. Low to Moderate

3.1 AESTHETICS



SONGS Mesa LCU

Location. Mesa between San Onofre Creek and mountains to the south Characteristic features. SONGS Mesa staging yard and surrounding slopes covered in Diegan coastal sage scrub and some non-native trees. This LCU is not open to the general public. Most of the SONGS Mesa staging yard is not highly visible from public vantage points due to intervening topography; however, portions of the LCU can be seen from I-5, the Metrolink Rail line, Old Pacific Highway 101, and the San Onofre State Beach entrance kiosk. Visually dominant features. SONGS Mesa staging yard, I-5, transmission lines between SONGS and SONGS Mesa Intactness. Low Unity. Low Vividness. Moderately High Visual Quality. Low to Moderate

3.1 AESTHETICS


3.1.3 Impact Analysis

Approach to Impact Analysis

Visual Impact Significance

The significance of aesthetic impacts is determined based on a combination of viewer sensitivity

and the degree of visual change caused by the proposed project. The interrelationship of these

two factors in determining the significance of adverse aesthetic impacts is shown in Table 3.1‐3.

Table 3.1-3 Guidelines for Determining the Significance of Adverse Visual Impact

Overall Viewer Sensitivity

Overall Visual Change

Low Low to

Moderate Moderate Moderate to

High High

Low Not Significant Not Significant Adverse, but Not Significant

Adverse, but Not Significant


Low to Moderate Not Significant Adverse, but

Not Significant Adverse, but



Not Significant

Moderate Adverse, but Not Significant



Adverse and Potentially Significant


Moderate to High





Significant

High Adverse, but Not Significant



Significant Significant

Not Significant impacts may or may not be perceptible but are considered minor in the context of existing landscape characteristics and view opportunity. Adverse but Not Significant impacts are perceived as negative but do not exceed environmental thresholds. Adverse and Potentially Significant impacts are perceived as negative and may exceed environmental thresholds depending on project and site-specific circumstances. Significant impacts with feasible mitigation may be reduced to less than significant levels or avoided all together. Without mitigation or avoidance measures, significant impacts would exceed environmental thresholds.

Key Observation Points

Six KOPs were selected to analyze visual impacts from the proposed project. These KOPs depict

representative public views of the proposed project across each publicly visible landscape unit.

It is assumed that military personnel involved in training operations have low sensitivity to

visual changes because their attention would be focused on Department of Defense mission‐

related activities; therefore, views from areas that are not publicly accessible within MCB CPEN

were not considered in the visual assessment. Photographs of existing conditions were taken at

each of the KOPs to represent the baseline conditions, and visual simulations were developed

for each KOP to represent views of the proposed project. The locations of KOPs are shown on

Figure 3.1‐2. Table 3.1‐4 presents a summary of the KOPs. The photos of baseline/existing

conditions and visual simulations provided below are representative of the visual conditions

prior to and after construction of the proposed project from each KOP (Figure 3.1‐3 through

Figure 3.1‐14).

3.1 AESTHETICS


Figure 3.1-2 Key Observation Points (Revised)

3.1 AESTHETICS


Table 3.1-4 Description of Key Observation Points and Viewer Sensitivity

KOP Location of Viewpoint

Project Elements

Direction of View Description of Views

Viewer Sensitivity

1 I-5, northbound over the San Onofre Creek drainage

Segment B and Segment E

North Foreground: San Onofre Creek Middle ground: San Onofre Housing Area, Bravo Three Training Area, transmission and power lines

Low to Moderate

2 I-5, northbound over the San Onofre Creek drainage

Segment E Northeast Foreground: San Onofre Creek Middle ground: San Onofre Housing Area, transmission and power lines

Low to Moderate

3 San Onofre State Beach – Trestles Beach Parking Area on S El Camino Real

Segment F East Foreground: San Onofre State Beach – Trestles Beach Parking Area, TL 695 (existing alignment)

Moderate to High

4 San Onofre State Beach – Trestles Beach Parking Area on S El Camino Real

Segment F North Foreground: San Onofre State Beach, TL 695 (existing alignment), access road/trail

Moderate to High

5 San Onofre State Beach lease area trail near Pole 23

Segment A South Foreground: San Onofre State Beach, transmission and power lines Middle ground: Sierra Training Area, San Onofre Housing Area

High

6 San Onofre State Beach lease area trail near Talega Substation

Segment A West Foreground: San Onofre State Beach, TL 695 (existing alignment), access road/trail

High

3.1 AESTHETICS


This page is intentionally left blank.

3.1 AESTHETICS



Figure 3.1-3 KOP #1 Existing Conditions

3.1 AESTHETICS


Source: SDG&E 2016b

Figure 3.1-4 KOP #1 Visual Simulation

3.1 AESTHETICS


Source: SDG&E 2016b


3.1 AESTHETICS


Source: SDG&E 2016b


3.1 AESTHETICS


Source: SDG&E 2016a

3.1 AESTHETICS



3.1 AESTHETICS


Summary of Impacts Table 3.1‐5 presents a summary of the CEQA significance criteria and impacts on aesthetics that

would occur during construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project.

Table 3.1-5 Summary of Proposed Project Impacts on Aesthetics

Would the Proposed Project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less than Significant Impact

with Mitigation Incorporated

Less than Significant

Impact No Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

Impact Discussion

a) Would the proposed project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

Significance Determination

Less than significant

The proposed project would not be visible from any designated or eligible federal, state, county,

or city scenic vista. There would be no impact on designated scenic vistas from construction,

operation, or maintenance of the proposed project.

Public view corridors and significant ridgelines designated by the City of San Clemente also

function as scenic vistas. The proposed project would not be readily visible from any City of San

Clemente public view corridors due to intervening topography, development, and

infrastructure. Segment A would be visible from a significant ridgeline, Rancho San Clemente

Trail, located approximately 0.4 mile from the proposed project; however, views of the

proposed project would mostly be obscured by the four larger and taller existing transmission

lines present in the same corridor as the proposed project. The impact would be less than

significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

3.1 AESTHETICS


b) Would the proposed project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?



Construction There are no scenic trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings that would be affected by the

proposed project. As described in Section 3.5: Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological

Resources, there are no eligible historic buildings (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section

15064.5) in the proposed project area; therefore, no historic buildings would be visually

impacted by the proposed project. Visual impacts on cultural landscapes are analyzed in

Section 3.5: Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological Resources.

The closest designated scenic highway is SR‐74, located approximately 30 miles north of the

proposed project. The proposed project would not be visible from SR‐74 due to intervening

topography, built structures, vegetation, and distance from the project. The proposed project

would have no impact on scenic resources within a designated state scenic highway.

The segment of I‐5 near the proposed project is eligible for listing as a state scenic highway.

Construction activities, including pole topping, pole replacement, reconductoring, and

helicopter operations, would be visible from I‐5. Construction activities would last for a few

days at each pole location. Travelers along I‐5 could view construction activities for only a few

minutes due to the fast speeds (i.e., posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour) at which motorists

travel along the highway. Because of the short exposure time and temporary nature of

construction activities, impacts on scenic resources within an eligible scenic highway would be

less than significant.

Operation and Maintenance Segments E and F of the proposed project would be visible from I‐5. The proposed project

would involve the removal of conductor and topping of poles in Segment F; no adverse visual

change would result from the topping of poles and the removal of conductor.

Figure 3.1‐3 through Figure 3.1‐6 provide representative views from I‐5 of the existing scenic

conditions and the scenic conditions with the proposed project. Segment E would be

approximately 670 feet from I‐5 at the closest point. In Segment E, new steel poles would replace

existing wood poles in areas visible from I‐5. The new poles would be, on average,

approximately 20 feet taller than existing poles, and located, on average, approximately 12 feet

from existing pole locations but within the same alignment. As shown in Figure 3.1‐6, Segment E

would be moderately skylined; however, the proposed project would be less visually prominent

than other, closer existing power and communication lines (Figure 3.1‐6), as well as farther, but

larger, existing transmission lines (Figure 3.1‐4). Additionally, the proposed project would be

visually consistent with the other transmission and communications infrastructure located in the

same viewshed. Impacts on scenic resources from I‐5 would be less than significant.


3.1 AESTHETICS


c) Would the proposed project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?



Construction

Overview

Proposed project construction would introduce construction equipment to the visual landscape

and result in landscape alterations through vegetation removal and erection of new poles.

Construction activities including site preparation (vegetation removal and grading/blading),

pole replacement, conductor removal and stringing, and pole topping would be visible from

surrounding areas.

Site Preparation

Installation of new poles would require minor earthwork and vegetation clearing from a 20‐foot

radius work area for direct‐bury pole structures; a 75‐ by 75‐foot work area for pier foundation

pole structures; and a 10‐foot radius work area for overhead work, pole structure removal, pole

topping, and conductor stringing along Segment B. Site preparation activities would not last

more than a few days at each work area. Views of graded work areas would persist after

construction because it would take time for vegetation to reestablish in areas that are

temporarily disturbed by construction. Viewer sensitivity would be moderate (along I‐5) to high

(within the San Onofre State Beach lease area); however, the existing visual quality within the

I‐15 proposed project area ranges from low to moderate, and the visual change would be low.

The denuded land surface of work areas where poles would be removed would be consistent

with existing maintained cleared areas around existing transmission structures, and the

numerous fuel breaks and access roads that meander through the proposed project area and

San Onofre State Beach; therefore, the resulting impact on visual quality from vegetation

removal and grading would be less than significant (per Table 3.1‐3).

Access Roads

Access road maintenance and re‐establishment would be conducted on existing SDG&E access

roads and a new 50‐foot segment of access road. Access road maintenance activities, including

grading, vegetation clearing, and resurfacing of the existing access roads, would not affect

visual quality because the access road re‐establishment activities would be conducted within

the SDG&E’s existing access road width. The new 50‐foot segment of access road to Pole 102

would be located adjacent to the Japanese Mesa Substation and SONGS Mesa Staging Yard in

an area with low visual quality. The new segment of access road would appear similar to the

existing infrastructure in the area and would have a less than significant impact on visual

quality.

Pole Installation and Removal and Conductor Stringing

Large construction equipment such as truck‐mounted augurs, concrete trucks, cranes, and

helicopters would be used to transport materials, remove and install pole structures and

foundations, and remove and install conductor. Pole structure removal and installation

3.1 AESTHETICS


activities would last one to five days and up to ten days if rock splitting is required to install the

foundation. The conductor stringing phase would last for up to 60 days, but conductor stringing

would only occur for a few days in each area. The heavy equipment and helicopters would

result in a low degree of visual change because heavy equipment (e.g., tanks) and helicopters

are currently used throughout MCB CPEN for military operations. Viewer sensitivity to the

temporary visual change would be low due to the short duration of exposure to views of

construction equipment at each pole location. The resulting impact on visual quality would be


Staging Yards

Material and construction equipment storage, staging, and helicopter take‐off and landing

would take place at the staging yards and helicopter ILAs described in Section 2: Project

Description. Staging yards and helicopter ILAs would be located in previously disturbed areas;

however, mowing may be required to prepare the yards. Views of staging areas and helicopter

ILAs within MCB CPEN (Basilone Road, SDG&E Lot 4, SONGS Mesa, Area 62 Helo, Sierra

North Helo, and Sierra South Helo) and areas regularly used for material and equipment

staging (Talega staging yards, San Mateo staging yard, San Mateo Helo, and Lemon Grove

staging yard) would not degrade the visual quality of the surrounding area because large

vehicles and helicopters are frequently seen in these areas. The presence of SDG&E equipment

would result in a low visual change in these areas and viewer sensitivity to the helicopters and

heavy equipment would be low. Impacts would be less than significant.

One helicopter ILA, Talega Helo West, would be located on Avenida Pico. The area around

Avenida Pico is developed with housing, landscaping, and hardscaping that contribute to the

low visual quality of the area. The presence of construction materials and helicopters would not

degrade the visual quality of the surrounding area because the helicopter ILA would be located

on the road and in an area that exhibits low visual quality. Additionally, views of the helicopter

ILA would be short‐term (eight months during construction). Visual sensitivity would be low as

would visual change. Impacts on the visual quality of the area around Avenida Pico would be


Operation and Maintenance

Overview

Steel pole structures would replace existing wood poles along the proposed project alignment

in Segments A, D, and E. Existing wooden poles would be topped in Segment F. The proposed

project would be visible from public viewpoints along I‐5, local roadways, and within the San

Onofre State Beach lease area.

Views from I‐5

KOPs #1 and #2 (Figure 3.1‐3 through Figure 3.1‐6) provide representative views of Segment E

from I‐5. As shown in the visual simulations, the visual change resulting from the proposed

project would be low; the new pole structures would be only slightly more prominent and

slightly taller than the existing structures. Viewer sensitivity would be low to moderate because

the new poles would only be visible to travelers along I‐5 for a few minutes due to the fast

3.1 AESTHETICS


speeds (posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour) at which motorists travel along the highway.

Because of the low visual change and short exposure time to the visual change, impacts would

be less than significant.

Views from Other Roadways

Segments A, B, and F would be visible from other roadways in the proposed project area,

including Cristianitos Road. The proposed project would be located within existing

transmission corridors in these segments. Viewer sensitivity would generally be low to

moderate along roadways because motorists’ attention would be focused on the road and the

visual quality in Segments A, B, and F is low to moderate. Along Segment A, the proposed

project pole structures would be slightly taller and larger than existing structures; however,

these pole structures would still be shorter and smaller than the adjacent and visually dominant

steel lattice towers that exist in the transmission corridor, and the resulting level of visual

change in Segment A would be low. Along Segment B, conductor would be strung on existing

steel lattice towers that support other existing transmission lines. The proposed project

conductor would be visually comparable to the existing power and transmission line conductor

and would result in a low to imperceptible level of visual change. Existing wooden poles along

Segment F would be topped; the resulting poles would be shorter and less visually prominent

than existing poles (see Figure 3.1‐8 and Figure 3.1‐10). Topping the poles would not adversely

affect visual quality in the proposed project area. Impacts on visual quality would be low and


Views from San Onofre State Beach

Viewer sensitivity within the San Onofre State Beach lease area is generally high because hikers,

campers, and other recreationists travel to the area in part for the views of open space areas. The

proposed project’s steel pole structures would be installed in transmission corridors with

several adjacent existing transmission and power lines. Due to the existing transmission and

power lines, the visual quality within the San Onofre State Beach is currently low. While the

proposed project pole structures would appear larger and slightly taller than the existing

wooden power poles, the proposed project pole structures would be shorter than the adjacent

and more visually dominant steel lattice towers (see Figure 3.1‐10 and Figure 3.1‐11). The

proposed project power line and pole structures would be comparable to the existing power

line and poles in both form and line. While viewer sensitivity is high, the perceptible visual

change would be very low. The resulting impact on visual quality would be less than

significant.


3.1 AESTHETICS


d) Would the proposed project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?


Less than significant with mitigation

Construction Lighting would be used to the extent required by safety needs and emergencies. Construction

would generally occur within standard daylight work hours (7:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays

and 8:00 am to 6:00 pm on Saturdays) with the City of San Clemente and could occur at any

time within MCB CPEN. Nighttime lighting from construction activities could have a significant

impact on sensitive viewers, particularly in adjacent residential areas. MM Aesthetics‐1 requires

SDG&E to direct all nighttime lighting away from sensitive receptors. Impacts from night

lighting would be less than significant with implementation of MM Aesthetics‐1.

SDG&E would install fencing around staging yards and helicopter ILAs, where fencing is not

currently present. Fencing can produce minor amounts of glare, but fences are not a source of

distracting glare. Metallic elements are common in the viewshed at all but one of the proposed

staging yards and ILAs because the areas are either currently used for staging and storage or

are located in industrial or military areas. The potential glare from staging yard fences installed

for the proposed project would be comparable to the existing fences and metallic elements

currently present in the area. The impact from glare would be less than significant.

Operation and Maintenance The proposed project would not introduce any permanent sources of lighting. No impact from

lighting would occur.

Dull galvanized steel poles would be installed as part of the proposed project, which would not

produce glare due to the dulled metal surface. SDG&E would install specular conductor, which

could reflect sunlight and produce glare that could be seen in foreground and middle ground

views from roadways and trails. The conductor would be installed in areas where there are

existing power and transmission lines and the proposed line would replace existing specular

conductor in the area. The proposed project would not create a substantial new source of glare

due to the presence of existing specular conductor in the area. The impact would be less than

significant.

Mitigation Measures: MM Aesthetics‐1

3.1 AESTHETICS


3.1.4 Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure (MM) Aesthetics-1: Nighttime Lighting All nighttime lighting shall be shielded, pointed down, and directed away from surrounding properties. Lights will not be left on at night, except as required for nighttime work and/or an emergency.

Applicable Locations: All areas where nighttime lighting is used for construction

Performance Standards and Timing: Before Construction: N/A During Construction: (1) All nighttime is shielded and directed away from surrounding properties (2) Lights are not left on except as required for nighttime work and/or an emergency After Construction: N/A

3.1.5 References Caltrans. 2016. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Orange and San Diego Counties.

Accessed October 21, 2016.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/.

City of San Clemente. 2014. ʺCentennial General Plan.ʺ

Federal Highway Administration. 2015. ʺGuidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of

Highway Projects.ʺ US Department of Transportation. Accessed July 19, 2016.

http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/documents/VIA_Guidelines_for_Hig

hway_Projects.pdf.

—. 1988. ʺVisual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects.ʺ U.S. Department of Transportation.

Accessed July 19, 2016.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/downloads/visual/FHWAVisualImpactAssmt.pdf.

SDG&E. 2016a. ʺSDG&E Response to EDDR‐1 Qs 2‐21, 23‐37. Permit to Construct the TL 695

and TL 6971 Reconductor Project ‐‐ Application No. A.16‐04‐022.ʺ

—. 2016b. ʺSDG&E Response to EDDR‐1 Qs 22. Permit to Construct the TL 695 and TL 6971

Reconductor Project ‐‐ Application No. A.16‐04‐022.ʺ

3.1 AESTHETICS



3 environmental analysis...3.1 aesthetics tl 695 & tl 6971 reconductor project final is/mnd july...

Documents